Datalink Feedback VI: Semantics

[François Bonnarel]

Hi Pat, all
Le 16/04/2014 00:07, Patrick Dowler a écrit :
>
> We have recently updated our datalink service to try to shake out all 
> the issues we have discusued here.  On the topic of "full dataset 
> retrieval" and service_def, we just opted to leave service_def 
> empty/null (as in the last WD), which means this URL can be used as is.
>
> On our portal, the download application calls datalink and in normal 
> mode just picks out all the non-service urls (eg service_def = null) 
> and uses them.
>
> The datalink response includes real service links (service_def = 
> something and there is an associated resource with that ID), but we do 
> not yet have the intermediate case: a link which is not part of the 
> dataset retrieval but is an opaque url, such a a canned link to a 
> graphical preview image. We have such things, and if I was to add that 
> I would want to be able to differentiate it from "dataset retrieval"...
Yes. A "preview" semantic tag can do this I think.
>
> I would expect the semantics column to provide the solution to it.
>
> So, I still think on the datalink service side a null service_def and 
> null or special ("self") semantics is correct for "dataset retrieval".
>
I may accept a null service_def for retrieval, but "self" doesn't sound 
like semantic for me : The dataset we are facing, the one we now by its 
datasetid,  may be itself a science file, or a calibration file, or ....

Cheers
François
>
> Pat
>
> On 14/04/14 06:02 AM, François Bonnarel wrote:
>> As far as the "full retrieval" is concerned (self) I don't think it
>> belongs to the dataset. I think "dataset reterieval" is some kind of
>> service and should be described via the "service-def" field.
>
> IMO, A service_def would really obscure the fact that this is a plain 
> old download.
>